Finding
First, it is a social interaction between nations—a violent and nasty sort of interaction to be sure, but nonetheless
Paper
Why Nations Fight: Spirit, Identity, and Imagined Community
Citations: 3
Full textAbstract
Leaders, Ned Lebow provocatively and usefully argues in Why Nations Fight, are motivated to initiate war not simply by appetite and by fear, but by “spirit”—that is, by their desire for standing and revenge.1 This is, without question, a critically important observation if we are to understand why nations fight. It is an observation likely to be especially intriguing to constructivist scholars—which is what motivates this particular review. Spirit, of course, is a socially constructed reality. Esteem, self-esteem, and honor—the principal components of spirit—exist only in reflection or in anticipated reflection. They are functions of how (based on social interactions) we think others regard us, and how this compares to how we regard ourselves on those dimensions or characteristics we believe are important. Identity—how we socially construct or define who we are—determines the dimensions or characteristics we take to be important. In my own case, since I define myself as an academic, my self-esteem is not harmed at all by the realization that you think I am a terrible driver or a laughably poor sprinter—but for other individuals the slightest hint that they were perceived this way might trigger an immediate need for improved standing or revenge. What spirit means and what it motivates us to do or to respond to depends entirely on our construction of our identity. To understand the full implications of Lebow’s observation, though, we need to step back for a moment and think about modern war itself. Modern war, as Lebow observes, is “an increasingly complex social practice.”2 It is a social practice in two senses. First, it is a social interaction between nations—a violent and nasty sort of interaction to be sure, but nonetheless
Authors
E. Rhodes
Journal
Security Studies